Obama has just signed a climate change deal with China. Essentially,
- The US agrees to cut its emissions by 30% by 2030 from the 2005 baseline.
- China agrees to have its emissions peak in 2030, and to have 20% of energy come from non-fossil fuels.
The US target is basically just what the EPA is mandating anyway under the Clean Air Act. US emissions have fallen substantially since 2005, largely because unconventional natural gas has lead to massive coal-to-gas switching, which is a much cleaner fuel. There would be even more switching if states didn’t impose such restrictions on fracking. Ironically, many environmentalists oppose the technologies that have done the most to reduce US emissions: nuclear and fracking.
But what’s strange here is the Chinese side of the deal. This seems spectacularly badly designed. It’s basically a cap on all post-2030 emissions at the 2030 level. Which means they’re incentivised to pollute as much as possible in 2030, to give themselves a more generous cap. It literally encourages them to stockpile coal so they can burn many years worth of production in 2030. No need to build coal plants – you don’t need to generate electricity with this burning – this is just pollution for the sake of pollution.
Now, probably China won’t just pile up resources and destroy them for the sake of destruction. But there are many more subtle ways they could take advantage of this, like bringing forward any planned coal plants, so ones scheduled to start in 2031 instead start in 2029, or delaying the implementation of emissions-reducing technologies till 2031.
Given the potential for this agreement to be actively harmful, maybe we should be grateful it’s probably purely symbolic.
Vox had an excellent article a while ago on how politics makes us stupid. It describes a number of ways in which people behave systematically irrationally about politics.
For example, there is research suggesting that showing people more evidence makes them hold their existing beliefs more firmly – regardless of whether the evidence supported or contradicted their beliefs. It talks about how people avoid evidence that threatens their self-identity.
But Vox made one big mistake with the article. When writing apolitical pieces, designed to reach across party lines and improve the state of political rationality, there is one rule you must always obey. Failing to observe this rule will lead to one side rejecting you and the other side failing to learn the lesson at hand. Failure to observe this rule leads to mindkilling, and Moloch.
The rule is:
If you use a political example from one side, you must use an equal and opposite example from the other side.
If you’re writing an article on irrationality in politics, and you have an example of republicans being irrational, you need to have an equally important example of democrats being irrational, with the same emotional salience, and the same amount of pagespace dedicated to it.
Vox totally violates this rule. And it does it in the predictable direction. It’s a left-wing site in general, and it’s specific examples of irrational behaviour (apart from those lifted from papers):
- Climate change ‘denialists’
- Sean Hannity (a conservative commentator)
- Fox News
- Antonin Scalia
Every single example of a person or a group they used were right-wing. Did they notice this? If not, then they need to do some serious work on their own bias. If they did, they have done their left-wing readers a great disservice.
The point of learning about biases isn’t to gain a new weapon with which to attack others. The point is to turn the knife upon yourself and cut the cancer from your own mind.